This writ petition challenging a notice of demand was dismissed. The Court held Federal Bank is not a State and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Act if the bank initiates measures under Section 13(4).
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.8569 OF 2012
March 30, 2012
Between:
Vunikilli Sriramachandra Raju, S/o.Sri V.Chinapothu Raju And another
... Petitioners
And
The Federal Bank Limited, represented by its Chief Manager, South Jail Road, Near Ambedkar Statue, Visakhapatnam
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.8569 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioners who allegedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.0.95, part of S.No.29, Patta No.179 of Kasimkota Village and Mandal in Visakhapatnam District filed the instant writ petition assailing the notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act). Their case is that they did not create any security in respect of the property they purchased from Dendukuri Satyanarayana Raju; that their vendor created security interest in the said property in favour of the respondent bank; and that any further action by the bank would cause prejudice to the petitioners.
The respondent–Federal Bank Limited; is a private bank. In Federal Bank of India v Sagar Thoma s[1] the Supreme Court held that Federal Bank is not a State nor amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the writ petition does not lie. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Act as and when the respondent bank initiates any measures under Section 13(4) of the Act.
The writ petition, subject to above observations, is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
March 30, 2012 YS
[1] (2003) 10 SCC 733 : AIR 2003 SC 4325
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be filed under Article 226 against a private bank like the Federal Bank in recovery proceedings.
Whether under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, any further authority exists for filing writ petitions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Federal Bank of India v Sagar ThomaFollowed¶16
(2003) 10 SCC 733 : AIR 2003 SC 4325 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Vunikilli Sriramachandra Raju
Federal Bank Limited
V.V.S.RAO
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
